Durg, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8797 of 2024 Tulsi Ram Sahu S/o Lochan Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 52, Bamleshwari Colony, Near R.K. Gym Durg Borsi, Durg, Tahsil And Distt- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ..Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Somni, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant MCRC No. 8808 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1155/2024, vide order dated 14.10.2024, however, case diary reveals that the accused Ajay Kurre, in connivance with accused Patwari Tulsi, prepared forged documents in his name, causing fraud to the complainant, and deposited Rs. 4 lakhs into his account. The 5 forgery relates to the preparation of a loan document, B-1, and Form P-2 for land bearing Khasra No. 2/8, area 0.301 hectares. The case involves cheating by creating forged documents, pretending that someone else's land belonged to the accused, and then selling it, thereby dishonestly obtaining Rs. 4 lakhs from him. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the allegation against the applicants are that they cheated the complainant by preparing forged documents, pretending that someone else's land belonged to the accused, and then selling it, thereby dishonestly obtaining Rs. 4 lakhs from him however, there is no evidence against them and also considering the fact that there is delay in lodging the FIR about 3 and half years for which no explanation has been offered and further the fact that the co-accused namely Ajay Kumar Kurrey, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1155/2024, vide order dated 14.10.2024, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 8. Let the Applicants- Tulsi Ram Sahu and Govind Ram Nirmalkar involved in Crime No.150/2024, registered at Police Station Somni, District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC, be released on bail on their 6 furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court 7 absence of the applicants are deliberated or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal
Arguments
Govind Ram Nirmalkar S/o Shri Gangu Ram Nirmalkar Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Anjora Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Somni, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Manish Nigam and Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/01/2025 1. Since the above two bail applications are arising out of same crime 2 number so they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.150/2024, registered at Police Station Somni, District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the year 2024, the complainant namely Amit Kumar Jain lodged an FIR at police station Somni for the offence under Sections 420,467,468,471,34 of IPC against Ajay Kumar Kurre, Tulsi Sahu and Govind Prasad Nirmalkar. That in the year 2020, the land broker Ajay Kumar Kurre came to the complainant and expressed that as per his knowledge land situated in village Anjora, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G) ad measuring 75 decimal land adjoining the road in Anjora, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G) is available for sale at very reasonable price. That thereafter, the complainant along with the broker Ajay Kurre went to the village Anjora to see the land, where Ajay Kurre and Patwari Tulsi Sahu called the land owner Govind Prasad Nirmalkar and all three together showed him the land where the complainant orally agreed to buy the the land at the price of Rs. 6 Lakhs and thereafter, when he asked for the revenue document B-01, map and other documents, Ajay Kurre and Patwari Tulsi Sahu took him to the Patwari ofÏce kopedih and handed over the rid pustika, B-01, naksha and etc other documents of Govind Prasad Nirmalkar to the complainant and after that an advance payment of Rs.4 Lakhs was 3 paid through RTGS in account of Govind Prasad Nirmalkar. On this Govind Prasad Nirmalkar executed an agreement on 13/10/2020 which is witnessed by Ajay Kurre and Aakash Jain and the deadline of registration was fixed as 02/11/2020. But thereafter the registry of the said land did not took place within deadline which arose a suspicious doubt in complainant mind and on searching the documents he found that the said land was registered in the name of the person named Kishan. After knowing this fact the complainant asked the accused to return the money and Rs 1 lakh was returned by only Tulsi Sahu. Thereafter, a written complaint was filed by Amit Kumar Jain (Complainant) that on the basis of forged documents fraud of Rs 3 lakhs is made. Therefore, the aforesaid offence was registered against the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. They further submits that the applicant Tulsi Ram at the time of incident was working as Patwari at gram Anjora district Rajnandgaon (C.G) and has only performed his ofÏcial duties and has been falsely implicated for personal gains. They further submits that one Ajay Kurrey who is one of the accused in the instant case, had approached to the complainant for sale to land, show as land of applicant to get wrong full gain by wrong full loss to the complainant from perusal of written complaint there is no inducement on the part of the applicant Tulsi Ram to the complainant for sale of the land. The accused who had approached to the complainant for sale of land, who has been released on anticipatory bail by the this Court, 4 vide order dated 14.10.2024 in MCRCA No. 1155/2024. After selling the land name of real owner ought to have been mutated/ mentioned on the land record by the concerned revenue authority, but, the same has not been done and under the instruction of the Ajay kurrey as an advanced amount of Rs 4 lakhs sent through RTG by the complainant in the account of applicant out of 4 lakhs 1 lakh has been returned to the complainant by the applicant Tulsi Ram. As per prosecution case. They further submits that the applicants neither approached to the complainant nor shown the land to him for sale, as that, he was the owner of the said land as well as the applicant Tulsi Ram neither prepared forged documents as well as nor directed to the other co-accused for preparation of record and the applicants are in jail since 27.09.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion therefore, they prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the said submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that the co-accused person namely Ajay Kumar Kurre has already been